Rehearse

Vice-President Dhankhar’s Remarks on Supreme Court Spark Sharp Opposition Reaction

Highlight
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's recent comments describing Article 142 of the Constitution as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces” have drawn strong criticism from Opposition leaders. They accused the Rajya Sabha Chairman of violating constitutional neutrality and undermining the judiciary’s role. Highlighting past judicial reliance on Article 142 — including in the Ram Janmabhoomi case — leaders such as Kapil Sibal, P. Wilson, and Randeep Surjewala called Dhankhar’s remarks politically motivated and selectively critical of the Supreme Court. The episode adds fuel to the ongoing executive-judiciary tension, as Opposition parties reaffirm the primacy of the Constitution over all institutions.

Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has found himself at the centre of political controversy after describing Article 142 of the Constitution — which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for “complete justice” — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” His statement has evoked a chorus of criticism from senior Opposition leaders, legal experts, and Members of Parliament, who argue that the comment undermines constitutional propriety and judicial independence.

Speaking to a group of interns on Thursday, Mr. Dhankhar, who also serves as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, expressed concern over what he termed the judiciary’s increasing encroachment on legislative and executive domains. He specifically criticised the Supreme Court’s recent ruling directing timelines for the Governor and President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures, suggesting it implied judicial overreach akin to functioning as a “super Parliament.”

The timing and content of these remarks, however, have sparked sharp reactions from across the Opposition spectrum.

Kapil Sibal: ‘Unprecedented partisanship’

Senior advocate and former Law Minister Kapil Sibal minced no words, asserting that it was unprecedented for a Rajya Sabha Chairman to make such politically charged statements. “I have never seen the Chairman of the Upper House make political statements that critique the judiciary. The Chair must remain above politics,” Mr. Sibal said.

He further noted that “when the executive dislikes the judiciary’s decision, they claim overreach. But when it suits them, they hail the court’s wisdom.” According to him, attacking the judiciary — which cannot defend itself publicly — from constitutional offices amounts to undermining the foundation of democracy.

DMK and Congress: Article 142 not new, nor dangerous

DMK MP and senior lawyer P. Wilson questioned the selective interpretation of Article 142. “The same provision was used in the Ram Janmabhoomi case to grant equitable relief — a judgment hailed by many. Why is it being branded as a 'nuclear missile' now?” he asked, highlighting that Article 142 has been constitutionally embedded and sparingly, but necessarily, applied.

Congress Rajya Sabha MP Randeep Surjewala echoed this view, describing the Supreme Court’s direction on timelines for gubernatorial assent as “timely, accurate and courageous.” He added, “No office — not even that of the President or the Prime Minister — is above constitutional scrutiny.”

CPI and RJD: Constitution, not individuals, is supreme

Communist Party of India (CPI) General Secretary D. Raja criticised what he called Mr. Dhankhar’s “selective outrage.” He accused the Vice-President of failing to uphold democratic debate in the House, particularly when he did not permit a discussion on communal remarks made by a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, despite a motion signed by 55 MPs.

RJD MP Manoj K. Jha, known for his nuanced constitutional positions, said, “We are in an era where sensitivity and restraint from all constitutional authorities — including the executive — is essential. Judicial independence must not be reduced to a target of partisan politics.”

The legal crux: Article 142 and the Supreme Court’s discretion

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any matter before it. It has historically been used in exceptional situations — including environmental cases, criminal justice reforms, and high-profile land disputes.

The Supreme Court’s recent use of Article 142 to direct timelines for executive action on State Bills stemmed from long-pending legislation in States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where Governors allegedly sat on Bills without action for months or years. Legal scholars noted that the Court’s judgment clarified constitutional accountability rather than upsetting the balance of power.

Wider implications

The spat comes amid increasing friction between the judiciary and the executive over issues like judicial appointments, the role of Governors, and the limits of constitutional authority. It also raises questions about whether holders of constitutional posts — such as the Vice-President — can or should critique one organ of the State while upholding the impartiality of their own role.

While Mr. Dhankhar has not retracted his comments, the robust defence of the judiciary by Opposition MPs underscores a renewed commitment to maintaining the constitutional separation of powers — even if the boundaries between branches continue to blur.

Image Links

Reference Links

Summary

Controversy Triggered: Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar called Article 142 a “nuclear missile against democratic forces,” criticising the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Bills pending with Governors and the President.
Opposition Reactions: Senior leaders like Kapil Sibal, P. Wilson, Randeep Surjewala, D. Raja, and Manoj Jha criticised Dhankhar’s remarks, calling them politically motivated and unconstitutional.
Use of Article 142: Leaders reminded that Article 142 had been invoked in the Ram Janmabhoomi case and other landmark rulings, defending its legitimacy.
Supreme Court Ruling: The recent ruling set deadlines for constitutional authorities to act on State Bills, curbing indefinite delay.
Broader Concern: The incident reflects ongoing executive-judiciary tensions and highlights the need for impartiality from constitutional officeholders.